Re: a little sermon
AntiUtopia (AntiUtopia@aol.com)
Thu, 12 Mar 1998 07:05:39 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 98-03-12 04:07:10 EST, you write:
<< But if you're essentially a didactic writer whose primary concern
is with the way human beings conduct their lives - which is what
I believe Salinger eventually tried to become (& I personally regard
it as a sad regression) - at some point you'll need to come out of
the warm nest of vaguely brotherly love & use words in clear,
sequential, coherent statements.
Scottie B. >>
First off, yes, your distinction between didactic writing and narrative--and
the stylistic differences between the two--can't really be argued. I don't
know that Salinger ever went into didacticism himself. Perhaps he did start
to, and that is why he quit publishing, at least, if not quit writing
altogether.
I don't see an inherent opposition between brotherly love and clear, coherent
language, although I can see that opposition as being valid in some instances.
Regardless of how we want to talk about these issues, what we are actually
doing here is literary theory. You can balk at the statement, and I'm sure
some listmembers hate the mere mention of it, but that's what it is. We're
commenting on the use of language and how readers approach texts, and where
meaning in a text resides. Just like anyone who bandages a deep cut is doing
first aid whether they're a doctor or a bus driver, so does everyone who
comment on these issues do literary criticism whether they're a literary
critic or just love reading.
But the bottom line is, I'd much rather have a doctor bandage my wounds than a
bus driver. And if we want to talk seriously about these issues, we may as
well listen to the critics because they've devoted their careers to precisely
this topic. Yes, some critics are outright morons. But most of them are
people like you and I who happen to be studying a particular subject. As a
result, they probably say things similar to what we would say if confronted
with the data they had.
Now here's what many of them say....
Grounding the meaning of a text in the author's intent is a
fallacy...heh...it's called the "intentional fallacy," as a matter of fact.
Even an incredibly conservative scholar such as C.S. Lewis didn't ground the
meaning of his texts in his intention. Once he wrote a work, he assumed the
position of reader like everyone else and subjected himself to the judgments
of other readers as to the meaning of his text. He did recognize that some
readers were more competent than others, just as some writers are more
competent than others, so he didn't give everyone's opinion equal weight as do
the more moronic schools of literary criticism such as extreme versions of
Reader Response.
The problem with author based views of meaning is obvious, once you've thought
about it a little while. What do you use to get to the author's intent? His
or her words. Then how do you get to the meaning of those words? More words,
I suppose. At no point do we ever get direct access to an author's mind
except through the author's words.
So we always come down to having to interpret text. I believe that's where
meaning lies. Author based critics look to the body of the author's work, his
or her life, and the historical context of the writing to get meaning--not the
author's mind. But all we are doing in those circumstances is placing
ourselves, through our study, in the author's immediate reading circle.
Meaning resides, then, in both text and readers, the author being the one
reader most familiar with the facts of the text....
Interpretation is a choice. Not a random choice, mind you, and our choices
are more narrow with some forms of writing than others, but the readers are
where the meaning is supposed to happen....
Jim